Poverty as a Widespread Phenomenon: Deprivation and Disparity - Essay Example

1. Introduction Poverty can be defined as the lack of basic necessities in its most basic form. However a more comprehensive definition of poverty states that it is the lack of basic as well as perceived needs. Basic needs comprise of food, clothing, shelter, care and other such factors that are necessary for survival while perceived needs include needs that are derived from social and past experiences. (Sen) Poverty is also taken as deprivation and disparity. The relative extents of social affluence define disparity in any society. Psychologically poverty can be defined in a number of different ways but this paper will be limited to addressing poverty through an individual and global perspective. Both perspectives will be presented along with different methods to address such models of poverty. 2. Individual Poverty The individual theory of poverty purports that the individual is himself responsible for the poverty that surrounds him. There are multifaceted explanations for the individual causes for poverty but all are ultimately tied down to blaming the individual. This line of argumentations is typically taken by politically conservative theoreticians who state that the right choices by an individual as well as continued hard work could lift a person out of poverty. Moreover they also state that most problems relating to poverty are themselves mere creations of the individual affected by poverty. Another set of ideas relating to individual poverty state that poverty is a result of genetic traits and as such it cannot be reversed this easily as it is hard coded into human nature and persona. The idea that poverty is a result of human deficiencies has roots in history. Previously religious ideologies related that wealth was a result of God’s favour. Furthermore disabled individuals were seen as being punished by God for either their individual sins or for the sins of their parents. As the concept of inherited intelligence took root in the nineteenth century, the eugenics even proposed that such disabled individuals should be sterilised in order to prevent further generations of poverty and misery. Rainwater has discussed such perspectives in detail and states that the religious perspective on individual poverty ensures that certain people live in hell on earth because of their misdeeds. He further states that such perspectives have misaligned the actual reasons behind poverty to a very large extent. (Rainwater) The rise of the neo-classical economics only augmented the individual theories on poverty by arguing that only the individual can improve their state of being through making wise choices (and investments) through the use of sound information. If for example an individual would decide on low paying investments or short term remuneration then according to the economic theory the individual is responsible for their own state of poverty. The economic theory also holds that the poor are short in terms of incentives because of welfare systems and this in turn only augments poverty. The consistent provision of free cash transfers to the poor is seen as discouraging the poor from finding a way out of welfare schemes and programs. Some economists have put the blame square on “war on poverty” programs to perpetuate individual poverty. (Gwartney and McCaleb) 3. Human Development Models for Individual Poverty Human development models that rely on individual theories of poverty tend to help out individuals through welfare and social policies aimed at employing individuals to eradicate poverty. However such policy approaches have been adapted readily without much attention to implementation. The major focus of such human development programs is to employ poor individuals in the drive labelled as the “workist consensus”. This kind of strategy is often augmented by subtle emphasis on “self help” stratagems for poorer individuals to lift themselves out of their own poverty. Such initiatives are often followed by the elimination of welfare and other kinds of social assistance. (Maskovsky) Certain problems come to spotlight when individual poverty based strategies are used to address poverty especially in philosophical terms and in terms of program success. The programs used by communities tend to avoid blaming the individual directly for his poverty and hence these programs are undermined on the inside. Consequently individual self help programs tend to bypass strategies that would punish the individual or even change the individual as a means of promoting self help. This stands true even as the strategy of most of these programs is to upgrade the skill sets and capabilities of poorer individuals. A differing approach to self help poverty programs is to castigate the individual or to threaten with castigation as a means of motivation. (Quigley) A prime example is using conditions such as limits on the total number of years that family assistance can be pursued. (Levitan, Mangum and Mangum) The real positive aspect of community based individual programs is that the disabled, the infant, the old and other such marginal groups can be helped out through community involvement. However other than this the individual theory of poverty based efforts at eradicating poverty are of limited success. Even though the pervasive social view may provide that individuals are to blame for their poverty but human development programs may need to look elsewhere such as global poverty theories to find more positive and lasting solutions. 4. Global Poverty While the theory of poverty presented before dealt with individual perspectives on poverty only, the current theory emphasises interaction on a global scale to delineate the causes behind poverty. The set of ideas explaining the global poverty approach rely on a mix of social, economic and political factors that cause certain people to receive only limited opportunities in life. A primary problem presented by the global explanation is that rather than concentrating on who lost the economic game the focus should be that economic interplay tends to produce “losers” by design. (Rank) The global perspective on poverty was already presented since the eighteenth century (such as Karl Marx’s economic and social theories) but the dimensions of these perspectives have expanded in recent times. Recent trends indicate that certain people are left in poverty by design of social, economic and political systems through global trade and interaction even if these people are competent enough. (Jencks) Global power interplays have been blamed for the causations behind disparity and deprivation to address the global poverty approach. The dominating influence of the developed nations has often been cited as a major causation behind widespread poverty in the Third World. The interference of more advanced nations into the internal affairs of poorer nations has tended to create differing elite and poor classes with only marginal middle classes. The elite are theorized to serve their “masters” in the advanced nations to siphon local resources aboard and to discourage development that would increase competition with industry and trade of advanced nations. 5. Human Development Models for Global Poverty The projection of global poverty theories suggests that there are at least two possible methods to address poverty. One approach is based on the limits placed as to the interference of more advanced nations into the affairs of poorer nations. The other approach is based on poorer nations evolving stronger institutions to protect their interests and to resist foreign interference at all levels. However both approaches possess obvious pitfalls which limit their practicability. For one thing both approaches try to solve a complex problem that depends on a large number of variables that cannot be monitored and controlled at the same time. Sporadic efforts are diverted by agencies such as the UN, the IMF and World Bank but most programs fall prey to corrupt local structures. Hence these efforts are perceived as little else than advances by affluent nations into the affairs of poorer nations. 6. Conclusion Poverty is a widespread phenomenon that is based on deprivation and disparity. Multiple perspectives exist on both the causes for poverty and its solutions. The individual approach tends to blame people and their traits as the real causations of poverty. The programs initiated to combat poverty at the individual scale are often blamed for encouraging more poverty and for being too lenient on individuals. On the other hand the global approach to poverty is based on the economic, social and political factors that are affected by global power play and interaction. The more advanced nations can be seen as taking advantage of poorer nations but only randomised efforts are taken in order to alleviate poverty. There is little hope that any approach used to address global poverty would serve any good because of the limitations on their practicability. 7. Bibliography Gwartney, J. and T. S. McCaleb. “Have antipoverty programs increased poverty?” Cato Journal 5(5) (1985): 1-16. Jencks, C. “Can we replace welfare with work?” Darby, R. Reducing Poverty in America. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996. 69-81. Levitan, S. A., et al. Programs in Aid of the Poor. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2003. Maskovsky, J. “Afterword: Beyond privatist consensus.” Goode, J. and J. Maskovsky. The new poverty studies. New York: New York University Press, 2001. 472-473. Quigley, W. P. Ending Poverty as we Know it. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2003. Rainwater, L. “Neutralising the disinherited: Some psychological aspects of understanding the poor.” Allen, V. L. Psychological Factors in Poverty. Chicago: Markham, 1970. 9-28. Rank, M. R. One Nation, Underpriviliged. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Sen, A. Development as Freedom. New York: Vintage, 1999. Read More